Lopez Moreno v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ MORENO, No. 22-1757 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-711-176 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Manuel Lopez Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Because Lopez Moreno does not contest the agency’s determination that he waived challenge to the asylum and cancellation of removal denials, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Lopez Moreno also does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that he failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Lopez Moreno’s withholding of removal claim. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lopez Moreno’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of his withholding of removal claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Lopez Moreno failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture 2 22-1757 too speculative). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 22-1757